Low HR Training

Treadmill test to determine MAF (KPH) (19 tests) (Read 2722 times)

NOTE/ADDENDUM TO PROTOCOL 8/23/13: Besides the steps listed below, make mental notes during the test at which speeds you observed changes in your breathing. Then see how that info matches up with the data after the test. --Jimmy

I took a RQ/v02max test a few years ago, and determined my MAF was about 133 at the time (I was 48 at the time of the test). After that, I got to thinking about how to determine the MAF without the RQ element. I was thinking that if I could mirror the RQ test in terms of sample rate and increase in stress, then the HR graph should do the same thing. I wouldn't have any Fat/sugar% information, but the point of the steep rise in the graph that one sees when we engage the anaerobic system would be there. I created a test that failed to replicate itself with other people. Later on, I realized the sample rate wasn't enough.

A few months back, I created a new one. I tested on myself, but through the rsults out because the HRM just wasn't working. I was beginning a base period, and didn't want to retest. SInce I'm starting an anaerobic phase, I thought I would test myself today.

The test goes like this:

*note: your test treadmill needs to be set to kilometers per hour (KPH). If you don't think your TM can be set to it, look at your owner's manual, or if you don't have the manual, look it up online. On my treadmill, you would never know it by looking at it that it could be set to KPH. I have to hold the "RESULTS" button down within a few seconds of booting up the TM. So, check it out.

1. Treadmill should be set to kilometers per hour. I used 1% incline--could probably be done with 0%.

2. Take 30 minutes to warm-up to MAF-20. Just take 180-age-20. Make sure you're at MAF -20 at beginning of test.

--a plateau and steep rise after 146-147 bpm. This is near the range where the V02max tester said my "aerobic base HR" which was my 50% fat/50%sugar burning point was (148 at the time.

--a plateau then a steep rise after 167 bpm. This could be my current LT.

--I stopped short of MHR. My treadmill sounded like it was going to come apart! I had some left.

I'll be looking closer.

Enjoy.

--Jimmy

PS. When I did my RQ/V02max test, and posted it, Dr. Phil looked at the results and immediately noticed I hadn't warmed up enough. During that test, I had only warmed up during the test, not before it started. This one I warmed up 30 minutes before starting. I also did this test on an empty stomach, a few hours after waking. Eating high glycemic food before the test supposedly can affect the results.

The deflection point was at 130 bpms, then the steep rise. Very close to the calculated MAF of 132. After a long time of awful regression, she's been coming back for 5 months now, and\progressing in her training times at the same HR. In that plateau at 130bpm on the chart, there was one reading of 132 bpm and one at 131.

Started her at MAF-20 and stopped the test at about MAF+36 when I was asked to stop it. She was clearly above her LT at that point. Could hear it in her breathing. As soon as she got above 158 (there is a plateau at that point), she started to feel uncomfortable, her gait changed, and I could hear her breathing become labored. The discomfort increased, as did her breathing, and we stopped at 166. I've seen her go into the 180's

three years ago. She could have reached 18 again, in my opinion, but she's really not used to any discomfort at this point. I theorize that her LT is at that plateau at 158. Just a hunch.

SUBJECT B

17.5 years old

running 1 year, 3-4 times per week

Followed same protocol of 30 minute warmup to 20 beats below 180-age.

1% incline.

sample Hr and increase speed by .1KPH every 10 seconds

His 180-age would be 163. WIll be 18 in another 6 months. Deflection point at 162 bpm (MAF). He had a plateau around 180 bpm. At 187 BPM, he started breathing heavy, grunting at 191, and asking to stop at 195. Probably could have gone a little higher for MHR.

SUBJECT C

3/26/11

Oguz

55 years old

Thank you, Oguz!!!

OGUZ Report: Maf is 123, for sure. Starting from 9.9, to 10.4 kph, 6 consecutive readings of 123. 10.5 kph reading is 122 and 10.6 kph reading rises steeply to 125.123 correlates to my age; I will be 55 yo this summer. Aerobic Threshold plateau is around 138-141 HR, from 11.7 kph to 12.5 kph. 12.6 reading rises steeply to 144. I stopped the test at 16 kph, HR 165. I am a newbie in treadmill running and felt awkward at this speed. (0 % incline; should adjust to 1-2 %) LT probably is 165+. ( Theoretically; 140/0.85=165).

SUBJECT D

6/14/11

Dr. R

45 years old

Thank you, Doc!!!

This test did not follow the protocol, and was done with speed increments in miles per hour (MPH) instead of kilometers per hour (KPH). I've tried this before and it makes the test not as definitive. The amount of data points using MPH are much less than KPH, and therefore makes the curve to the deflection point less defined, as well as the rise after the deflection.

Dr. R reports: I am 45, 46 in October, have MAF'ed at 143 for the last 3 1/2 years when I started playing with this seriously. Max heartrate is 194 or so. I'm an avid cyclist and race occasionally, cross train with running, just about always at MAF or below; the bike racing has gone well, since thinking I was old and decrepit and never going to be able to keep up with the bad boys, rediscovered Dr. Phil's work (I have read his work since the early 90's, but was "too lazy" to go slow), and it made a HUGE difference in my ride. Now have patients and friends doing it, though most of my cycling friends still think I am crazy (until I destroy them on the field, of course). Instinctively feel my MAF may be more like 138 or so right now, don't know why. Have been tested VO2 Max on the bike, gave me numbers of 141 and 174 LT, which I still use and feel it is about right.

Dr. R also reports he will be retesting using KPH.

There appears to be a deflection point at 138 bpm. Appears to be. The initial curve is a bit steep with a big jump from 121 to 129 up to 132 and back to 125 and back to 130. Considering Dr. R has been seeing progress for 3 years racing and training, 138 is in the ballpark, and in the +5 adjustment range for age 45. He had a plateau about in the same range above and relative to MAF that I saw in my test that could indicate the 50/50% fat/sugar point. And a plateau at his LT. Still, I can't call this a definitive test, as it was a different test than the one listed here. The deflection point could have been a little higher with more sampling.

I wanted to include it as an example of what happens when using MPH. There is probably a way to do the test correctly with MPH using a steady speed and a rise in incline, but haven't the desire to test it out--not a fan of the increasing incline test--feels like I am going to bust an achilles.

Leo tested on October 23, 2011. Due to a foot injury and another health problem he had been running at about 120 (180-age 50-10 beats).He followed the test protocol to the tee, using KPH and 10 second readings. Here is his chart:

Leo's watch went a little bloopy after rising to 122, then got back on track. You can see a deflection point at 124 bpm, then the steep rise. 124 would be 180-51(age)-5 beats. Considering the condition of his body, this lines up with the adjustments given by Dr. Phil. Definitely in the ballpark. Leo also had a small plateau at 143 and an extensive plateau at around 153. Some of us see a well-defined plateau around MAF+15 to +25, which could be when the next set of fast twitchers slightly kick in---just speculation. There is also one at 153. His maximum heart rate appears to be 189 bpm.

Thanks, Leo!

****************

SUBJECT G

Further (John)

age 49 (180-age=131)

added 1/18/13

From John:

Ok, finally ran this test. There are several deflection points, but if I had to guess, I'd say MAF is right about 131-133, where it should be. The slight secondary at 137 is confusing, though. As to LT, no idea. I only ran it to HR 181, and could have gone higher, but figured that was all I'd need...MAF+50. It's well above my calculated max...no idea what that means either. I've also been slacking so much this is more of a taper result, if that's significant.

JImmy: Thanks for posting, John. You have the classic plateau at MAF, then the steady steep rise afterwards. That small plateau at 137 had only two readings and isn't a really defined deflection. I usually see another plateau somewhere in the mid to high 140's for some reason. It just so happens to coincide with about 50% fat/50% sugar for me in an RQ test. Could be another part of the anaerobic fiber set kicking in. Confirming LT is a bit dodgy this way. It works for some and not others (research Conconi LT test). You do have a decent plateau at about 175-176 near the end of your test. When I was tested, my LT was 176 bpm (about 88% mHR). I haven't seen a defined deflection at LT yet in any test I've done, even in the RQ gas test, but always get one at my MAF.

As far as figuring out stuff to do with heart rate it doesn't matter, but you should be aware that treadmills are not necessarily very accurate. So unless you know that the one you used had been properly calibrated take the speeds/distances with a pinch of salt.

If you're training according to heart rate then in a way it doesn't matter how fast you're going...

As far as figuring out stuff to do with heart rate it doesn't matter, but you should be aware that treadmills are not necessarily very accurate. So unless you know that the one you used had been properly calibrated take the speeds/distances with a pinch of salt.

If you're training according to heart rate then in a way it doesn't matter how fast you're going...

RQ tests, V02max tests are done on treadmills, and speed and incline is just a way to move you through your energy systems and make the heart do its dance.This thread is about getting the same heart rate results without having to have to measure C02 output (RQ), since knowing the MAF heart rate is what is important in this form of heart-rate training. Knowing the fat/sugar ratio (RQ) is good information, but not necessary to do The Maffetone Method properly.

Thanks for the tip on calibration, PR. I keep a clean, calibrated, and comfortable TM.

I did conconi test about a year ago, though not on a treadmill. I increased HR / speed for every 200m. it showed my AT pretty good past 190bpm. basically my HR increased a lot slower from that point. but I didn't really try and check for anything else. I recall there was another point where it was not linear, I will have to look it up...

I guess I could do the same thing again. I think it could be a bit different since then.. and it's best to repeat these tests anyway for increased reliability.

I might try finding a treadmill, because then I wouldn't have to pay attention to the small speed increases. that required a lot of concentration in the conconi test. I did manage 26x200m in that test with gradually increasing HR. but again, I'm hoping creating 26 testpoints will be a lot easier on a treadmill. actually I can see you did like 80 testpoints! cool!

I do have data from my many training runs that give me a little idea about where the 2nd plateau and then rise (50%/50% for you) would be for me, around 165-170 bpm in my case. as for the 1st plateau not sure... the 2nd one is very easy to notice, because it jumps out so much for me. but that's just a ballpark range, exact bpm will have to be determined by a test.

as for LT/AT, mine is definitely not like on your graph because mine is over a much narrower HR range, but that's just an individual thing I think.

about LT and conconi test: online I read that there is some deflection point a.k.a. plateau in the conconi test where HR stops rising for a little time, and that would be LT. article then said that this deflection point doesn't exist for everyone. well I did not have such a plateau anywhere in conconi test but that would be because I went by HR and not by speed . it still showed my LT pretty good, just a different change in the graph, HR obviously did not stop increasing but the speed suddenly started increasing much more (this is another way of saying slower increase in HR at same speed increase).

the cool thing about that was that I never had a race in my life before that test, but a few months later I started racing and the race HR's just confirmed that finding: LT in 190's. I like to call it a range, not one specific point or one specific threshold point, but if we stick to one point then the speed increase rate changed at 190. and the increase rate changed even more past 195. I will also start feeling uncomfortable past 195 and you will definitely hear it from my breathing when I get past 195 - you won't notice it at 190. but I'm sure something starts up at 190 so this is why I like to call this a range rather than a point. especially because if you look at lactate graphs (online examples) it's hard to argue there is one specific point rather than a range.

anyway, it will be interesting to see if I get a similar result for LT in your treadmill test protocol too. MAF will be even more interesting. I have got a number in my head that could possibly be my MAF (got it based on experiences) but I want to see the test too!

btw, about breathing, you noted how your subject's breathing changed to be labored. you also noted that your LT may be at 167. does your breathing change there?

another question if you don't mind - if I get several plateaus how do I know which one is MAF? in your subject's case, there is only one big plateau at low HR so it's easy to see. but in your case there is four plateaus at low HR's, 123, 128, 130, 147. how were you able to pick 130?

Yeah, the Conconi test is like mine, you go by speed/time increments. Though mine has a higher sample rate.

I'll let you know about my breathing the next LT tempo that I do. During the test I was so focused on booping every ten seconds then increasing the speed--like a meditation, could not let mind wander-- that I never noticed until I was up in the 190's and it became hard to boop.

You can tell the MAF by the steep, lengthy rise after a deflection point. If you notice, both Subject A and myself had a lengthy steep rise after 130 that didn't plateau again until 147 for me and 151 for her (could be her 50/50 point). She also had a plateau at about 122-125, then a brief rise to the MAF plateau.

Of course there seems to be something happening for me at 147, and as I said, it coincides with the 50-50% fat/sugar ratio point in the 2009 RQ test. Subject A had the same thing occur after her steep rise to 151.

It's either coincidence that we both had the first deflection point/steep rise at or near our calculated MAF's, as Dr. Phil says will occur, or it is a correct result. If it is coincidence, then my MAF would possibly be 17 beats above the calculation, and hers 19 beats. Since. i'm coming into this experiment with a progam and method in mind, and many sources saying that the early deflection point/steep rise will be your MAF (and show when the anaerobic/sugar burning fibers first get engaged), then I'm thinking that if this is true, then there should be one at or near my MAF calculation, or within the parameters of the calculation. For example, I could have seen a deflection/steep rise anywhere between 120-140---if you consider the -10, +5, and that a person can keep the same MAF for 5 years. The one I did see within those parameters was at 130. If I would have seen the first lengthy steep rise at 147, then I would consider that either the test is faulty, or the Maffetone Method formula and its adjustments/parameters are. I would then consider getting another RQ test.

It is possible for someone who is 70 years old to have an MAF up to15-20 beats higher or 180-age+15, if you consider you can keep the same MAF for up to five years, can add up to ten beats over age 65, and ad +5 for progressing. So someone 70 might be a 130 (that's why an RQ test is very helpful in determining your real MAF--especially when you get up in the 60's and 70's--Slowgino can attest to this). Essentially, I'm trying to see if this test will help pinpoint the MAF, and take some of the guesswork out of whether or not to take adjustments and when.

I'm confident that my MAF is currently 130. I had been working at 133, and after some regression, thought it might be lower. I lowered it to 126 14-16 weeks ago, and was staunch about staying at or under it. MAF tests improved. It's conceivable I was anywhere between 126-130 during that time. 126 didn't hurt, as I saw nearly a minute of progress, with no speed work. I will continue to do these tests. The MAF I see in the deflection test should rise as my MAF tests improve.

I am testing another person this week, who could possibly be a 180-age-5, since he just started running this year. I will post the results.

Thanks, C.

--Jimmy

NOTE: (See subject A's test at the bottom of the top post on this page)

interesting that you didn't notice the changes in breathing at your LT (whether 167 or 175 or whatever), only at 190. you can get really focused on that treadmill! me, I can get easily distracted from whatever else I was paying attention to when I start feeling discomfort. though on the other hand it just makes me more focused on running itself. outside world is pretty much shut out from that point (past 195bpm).

thanks for the explanation about how you determined the deflection point. I didn't think of checking that steep rise.

yeah, I don't think it's likely you'd or the other subject have MAF at such a much higher point, but of course everything is possible in theory. I totally get what you're saying about experiencing how 126 worked while 133 didn't.

(this is how I picked the number that is my current idea about my MAF HR, because I got improvement doing "pure" base building at around that HR. I didn't have improvement in "pure" base build phase with target HR's lower than that. I will add that I did have improvement in a similar fashion with even higher HR's used in a kind of "base build", but I was relatively new to running and mileage low with enough rest days so maybe that's why)

I'll be curious to see Subject B's results.

I will post my own results in a few days. (perhaps even convince a friend of mine to try it! he's also in the -5 category having started running not long ago)

Dr.R

posted: 3/21/2011 at 7:46 PM

Really interesting Jimmy, quite ingenious really, as our MAF could of course change as different stressor affect us through life and training. I will look to this and try to play with it myself, and let you know. Good work and thanks.

DrPhil

posted: 3/23/2011 at 6:21 PM

Hi Jimmy,this is a great pilot study. Very well done. For comparison, test some more runners who have also previously been tested on a treadmill and have a graph. I'm very impressed.

One reason you might be sore following your test is that, on a treadmill, your quads work harder, and probably affect other muscles too, compared to running on the roads with the same incline, pace and HR. (This is one of the issues with video analysis of gait--treadmill running is a bit different than the roads, track or trails.) Will all this affect the reflection point and purpose of the test? Perhaps slightly, but not significantly since the time on the treadmill is not very long.

Great job! Maybe we'll see this research in the journal "Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise."